Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1887-12-19

Our esteemed contemporary, the Fort
hand Press, In Saturdays is1ne, dispof
itself riotously in seIf-gratulations owe
fts distinguished enterprise In securing
from its Augusta correspondent an item
reIAfing to ! ruling in the Kennebec Sul
perior Court which can justly be said to
have been several months old at the mo-
ment 1t was sent. The Journal has No
disposition to deprecizte the enterprise Of
the Press or discredit its correspondents
request was presented by j. II. Potter
ESQ, counsel for the accused, at former
term Of the court asking for ruling upon
the precise point involved In the recent
case, and the presiding Judge placed the
same construction upon the law at that
Eime. 1t il entirely irrelevant to say that
the question was not necessarily involved
In the decision Of the case at the former
term. The views of the Judge were
nnequivocaIly stated. The Journal gave
its report Of the case at the time, in thei
usual way, with the verdict rendered !
This substantiates our first statement that
khe claim was not new. Now the follow
ing is the stenographer's copy of 20 much
Of the Judges charge in the case of State
vs.. John Hayes, on Wednesday last, as
related to the payment Of the United
States special tax, evidence Of which was
Introduced In that case by the government /
The last legislature enacted the following
statute THE payment of the United States
special tai, as liquor seller, shall be held
10 be prima facie evidence that the person
paving said tax il common seller of intox.-
eating liquors" etc. And the question arises
here, what force shall be given TO this pro-
vision of the statue, or what constructon{
shall be placed upon the statue. Ordinarily
lii is familiar rule of procedure that the
court at . jury trial will hold any statue
enacted by the legislature to be constitutional
.al, for the purposes Of trial, leaving it to S
the law cour: or the court Of appeals to de
Itermine on more careful examination wheth- /
er il is in violation Of the fundamental law
of the the State or not.
In determining, however, question OF
that character, it in proper to consider wheth- l.
er it is necessary to place such construction
upon the act a. will render 1t nnconsttution-
!,i, it being presumed that the legi 'latureI
would not have enacted a statue in viola tlonI
Of the oganic Law of the State. 1t is Irop
er to pause and inquire whether it may soI
be so construed as not to be in violation cis
the Constitution.
II is a constitutional provision familiar tol
you all that mo person shall be deprived of
life, liberty or property, except BY the judE
4. 81. ~ 81. L.. a
Now the law of the land" in this connecticut
Ices not mean a statute enacted by a legisla-
ture. In 10 q phrase of very ancient originI
and is used to include those rules and forms
Of procedure which from time immemorialI
have been upheld and observed for the pro
tection Of private rights and among those
rules is one WEIGH l have already repeatedly
given you, and that is that every person id
presumed to be innocent until proved to bel
guilty. This is one Of those immemoriall
rights which it is not competent for the legis-
lature to take away from any person.
Now you will perceive at once that if II
should place upon this statute the construc-
ton that proof of the payment of the special
tax absolutely required you to render YER
iict of guilty against person upon trial. II
should practically deprive the accused of
this presumption of innocence, practically
bake away from you the exercise of youri
own judgment, aud thus deprive him of the
benefit of your judgment upon the evidence
in the case. 1t is clearly incompetent forI
the legislature to do this. II would be tax
ing from the defendant one of those rights
which have been guaranteed to him froms
time immemorial, protected by the constitu-|
ton of the State, Therefore I can only sayI
TO you while ordinarily the phrase prima ia
fte evidence means that you would be au1
thorized and required to render a verdicti
against person when the evidence remained
uncontradicted and unexplained that the
evidence first introduced by the government
would be sufficient to convict, cannot saw
10 you as matter of law that you are com
PEELED to render a verdict of guilty against al
person on proof merely of the payment of al
special tax. l can only say to you, gentle
men, that it is question of fact
TO you, because the defendant il
presumed to be innocent, and all rea-
sonablc doubt of his guilt must bel
removed from your minds. He is entitled
TO the judgment of jury and it is not com
petent for the legislature to interpose or sub
sutute their judgment of what shall be con
elusive proof, for the judgment of jury.
You are to exercise your Judgment uponI
the evidence. | can only say to you, there
fore, that il is a fact tor you to consider andI
i'm connection with the description of the
premises and in connection with the circum- !
stances surrounding the premises of the1
defendant you may say that it is primd .facief
evidence in your minds, that it is sufficient
But it will be fact fer you. cannot say
|you are required, as matter of law, to hold
bit sufficient.
And the county attorney has very property
called your attention TO the fact of payment
4 there was payment, made by this de- +
PENDANT, and inquired why the defendant
saw fit to make payment s25, or at the
rate of S25 for special tax as retail seller
of distilled spirits, which would also in
|clnde the right to sell malt liquors, unless
he did in fact intend to engage in the |
traffic"
The verdict was guilty.
From this full report it will be seen that
we were entirely justified in the statement
that the Judge did not "assume to declare
the law unconstitutional, but gave it a
construction in harmony with the consti-
tuition" His language is clear and ex-
|plicit upon that point. 1t is also salts
faction to the people OF kennebec to know
THAT in every case in which the evidences
|of the payment Of the special tax has been
introduced. the instructions and evidence
have been of such character that the
Jury felt justified in rendering verdict of
guilty against the accused.
The Press remarks that any one OF com
|mon sense would conclude from the alb
|stract given that the Judge declared the
|prima facie clause unconstitutional. This
is rather presuming upon the intellectual
ability Of average people to make proper
The Judge gave a con-
struction in harmony with the constitu-
zion, that is, he interpreted the clause in
regard to its legal intent. Now there is
! vast difference in Interpreting snything
legally and interpreting it according to
the motives, ideas or designs Of the per-
,-la